PEOPLE v. International Fidelity Insurance Company, Surety-Appellant. (2003)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2001, which denied appellant-surety's motion for remission of a bail forfeiture in the amount of $225,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant's motion for remission of bail, particularly since the underlying defendant still remains at large (see People v. Fiannaca, 306 N.Y. 513, 517-518, 119 N.E.2d 363;  People v. Scalise, 105 A.D.2d 869, 482 N.Y.S.2d 362, lv. denied 64 N.Y.2d 884, 487 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 476 N.E.2d 1009;  People v. Peerless Ins. Co., 21 A.D.2d 609, 613-614, 253 N.Y.S.2d 91).   The People's failure to extradite defendant, who did not meet the United States Justice Department's criteria for seeking extradition, does not entitle appellant to remission.   Since appellant was aware that no extradition was forthcoming, its efforts to return defendant from the Dominican Republic were worthless and undeserving of reimbursement.

 Appellant's due process rights were not violated by the absence of notice prior to entry of judgment.   Appellant had an opportunity to be heard prior to forfeiture (see CPL 540.10[1];  People v. Nicholas, 97 N.Y.2d 24, 28-29, 734 N.Y.S.2d 557, 760 N.E.2d 345) and its liability was established when the bail was forfeited (People v. Bennett, 136 N.Y. 482, 487, 32 N.E. 1044;  People v. Midland Ins. Co., 97 Misc.2d 341, 411 N.Y.S.2d 521).   The subsequent reduction of the order into a judgment did not impose any additional liability on appellant (see People v. Schonfeld, 74 N.Y.2d 324, 330, 547 N.Y.S.2d 266, 546 N.E.2d 395) and amounted to no more than a ministerial action (see International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. City of New York, 263 F Supp 2d 619, 634).